Solution to Unemployment

[Guest gonzo]

The head boss man seems more than willing to throw billions of dollars at businesses that are failing and for social programs for people who aren't working. At the same time, the military needs a whole lot of new stuff. IMO, a simple solution to both issues would be to boost military spending. Instead of cutting the numbers of aircraft we are buying, why not drastically increase them? People who have worked in manufacturing their whole lives are finding it difficult to "retrain" into a new job, so why make them? Put them on an assembly line at Boeing for new tankers, put them to work building new C-17s, F-22s, 35s, and helicopters. Why keep throwing money at car companies so they can keep making Hummers for soccer moms when we can be spending the money on something needed, all while boosting the hell out of the job market and economy? I say let' get this military industrial complex rolling and we can make a crapload of new jobs and put a lot of money that we would otherwise be throwing away to good use. Solve this Reagan style.

[Guest boredwith9to5]

I always wondered why people stopped spending money in a recession.. the way out of a recession is to start spending the money again!

To speak to your point, I agree that cutting the production lines which effectively cuts jobs seems to be backwards thinking from someone who's trying to turn the economy around (CIC).. But at the same time I understand where they are coming from. Sometimes you just have to cut spending on platforms that are not what we need for the wars we are fighting.

[check6]

700+ jobs are about to open up at vance...

[contraildash]

700+ jobs are about to open up at vance...

zing! lol

I can't find the post, but someone said it well earlier: "people shouldn't be getting paid $80 an hour to but doors on cars in an assembly line" (or something to that effect). Then we have a good portion of our enlisted force living under the poverty line. I agree with you...our damn priorities are jacked up.

On the subject of unemployment, another post used the example of Eastern Airlines. If there's another BRAC round in the near future, (although, what the hell is left to be BRAC'd??) you can bet your britches that Vance will be up there again. Oh and they have a history of a union that strikes that caused all flying to stop for XX months??? Yeah the Local is going to have bigger problems than what they are currently on strike for: economically killing the town of Enid.

But what do I care...I'll be PCS'd long and gone.

Edited June 11, 2009 by contraildash

[Guest AirForceZip]

I always wondered why people stopped spending money in a recession.. the way out of a recession is to start spending the money again!

Yes, the lack of spending money is what causes a recession, but its not a counter-positive. It is never wise to spend money that you do not have. I would love to see production of those aircraft increase, but the fact of the matter is the government needs to just stay out of this crap. Period. The government is in the same economic state as everyone living in that government. By printing and distributing money they are actually stealing from the common public and giving it to these businesses; hoping that the people who just had their money taken will want to spend more? Kind of a reverse Robin Hood if you ask me.

Fun fact: In 1950 the national income tax was roughly 2 percent of the average American's income. It is currently above 25 percent and rising to fund the governments spending. In all the average person spends half of his year's wages on taxes. Source

The only people who have money to spend are spending it all right; the government!

Lets take a look at their right to steal from us and spend it on failing bureaucrats. The tenth amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I'd post the whole constitution, but you will have to take my word on it. Those powers aren't given to the U.S. government.

Edit: spelling :)

Edited June 11, 2009 by AirForceZip

[Guest Hueypilot812]

Maybe just a small nitpicking point, but...

steel: A metal alloy

steal: To take something that doesn't belong to you

Now on to the subject at hand...

While I agree that shuttering existing aircraft programs hurts our economy, sacrifices military readiness and does absolutely zero to help the national debt (they just spend the money saved elsewhere on things that don't directly translate into jobs or productivity), I don't believe the simple solution to a recession is to spend, spend, spend on military hardware either. Do we need to support existing procurement? Yes. Do we need to spend the $800+ billion on defense? No. The point I'm trying to make is the government is over-spending, and that is one of our main problems. By creating excessive debt, it simply waters down any gains you'd make from boosting production of military hardware.

Again, however, closing aircraft production lines hurts more than it helps...we're taking skilled aeronautical manufacturing employees and telling them to pick up a hammer and start building schools or start shoveling asphalt to repave roads. In the end we'll have some nice schools and smooth roads, but it's all short term gain because those jobs do nothing to position us to compete against other manufacturing giants in Europe and Asia...not to mention that I don't know too many general laborers that make more than people manufacturing airplanes.

[StoleIt]

Wait...you mean the 5 billion we gave ACORN isn't helping?!?

[Guest boredwith9to5]

I always wondered why people stopped spending money in a recession.. the way out of a recession is to start spending the money again!

Just wanted to clarify that I was referring to people in this statement, not the gov't. I support the cut in the defense spending as long as it's for the right reasons and the cuts don't end up hurting our national defense in the long run. I think I read a statement recently that said something to the effect of 'The US spends more $ on our defense than all of our allies combined.' Sure that helps us maintain military superiority, but I'm sure we can do it for less.

[brabus]

but I'm sure we can do it for less.

We could, but that doesn't include not buying the equipment we need. Doing with less means stop buying 69 plasma TVs every fucking year for every squadron. Stop changing every uniform on a 2 yr basis. Stop buying the scheduler 4 GHz computers with 4 22" LCD monitors so he can use...excel (I mean seriously, WTFO). My wife has a GS job...sounds like the civilian side blows as much money on random shit as the AF does. I'm not kidding when I say I bet we could save BILLIONS by just not buying stupid shit. Oh wait, you say that's common sense...never mind, that won't be happening.

[Chuck17]

Fun fact: In 1950 the national income tax was roughly 2 percent of the average American's income. It is currently above 25 percent and rising to fund the governments spending. In all the average person spends half of his year's wages on taxes. Source

Uhh, know anything about the absolute abysmal state of the US Military on the eve of the Korean War? Maybe there was a reason... like only 2% tax and NO military budget (sic) in a little over 5 years (since the end of WW2). Could be a factor!

Im not saying Im for MORE taxes, Im saying statistics are bullshit 100% of the time. Especially when used to prove a point.

Chuck

[Guest AirForceZip]

Just wanted to clarify that I was referring to people in this statement, not the gov't. I support the cut in the defense spending as long as it's for the right reasons and the cuts don't end up hurting our national defense in the long run. I think I read a statement recently that said something to the effect of 'The US spends more $ on our defense than all of our allies combined.' Sure that helps us maintain military superiority, but I'm sure we can do it for less.

I understand where you are coming from, but you still have to realize that this recession was started because people spent money that they did not have, and as a result businesses lost money that they did not have. The people were then essentially cut off from spending, because the banks became reclusive and stopped giving out loans to potentially irresponsible people. While I probably would have done the same in their shoes thats what drove us deeper into the recession, because now people could not spend money; they did not have it and could not acquire it.

And now to finally clarify, the people are the government, or at least thats what our constitution says. So, the people found a new way to continue spending. I know that the bailouts were not given to a vote, but had they not had so much support by the people they probably would not have passed. The people really never stopped spending when you think about it, which continued to drive our economy further and further into a recession.

[Guest AirForceZip]

Uhh, know anything about the absolute abysmal state of the US Military on the eve of the Korean War? Maybe there was a reason... like only 2% tax and NO military budget (sic) in a little over 5 years (since the end of WW2). Could be a factor!

Im not saying Im for MORE taxes, Im saying statistics are bullshit 100% of the time. Especially when used to prove a point.

Chuck

I fully support Military spending, but our taxes do not have to be 25% of our income if we cut out all the government fat. Evan at 25% our Military is beginning to return to a similar state. Constitutionally the government is to defend our rights, freedoms, and liberties. My point was that high taxes are never the solution when they are used as intended by the constitution and no more. Which is what I alluded to when I posted the tenth amendment.

Edited June 12, 2009 by AirForceZip

[Guest boredwith9to5]

I understand where you are coming from, but you still have to realize that this recession was started because people spent money that they did not have, and as a result businesses lost money that they did not have. The people were then essentially cut off from spending, because the banks became reclusive and stopped giving out loans to potentially irresponsible people. While I probably would have done the same in their shoes thats what drove us deeper into the recession, because now people could not spend money; they did not have it and could not acquire it.

And now to finally clarify, the people are the government, or at least thats what our constitution says. So, the people found a new way to continue spending. I know that the bailouts were not given to a vote, but had they not had so much support by the people they probably would not have passed. The people really never stopped spending when you think about it, which continued to drive our economy further and further into a recession.

I see where you are coming from too. I understand the situation there. I think I was one of the lucky ones that this recession hasn't really affected. I was a year out of college with a 'home business' making enough to stay afloat. I didn't own a home and had no money invested. Bank with a FCU so no worries there and when people were losing their jobs, I picked up a nice contractor gig with the Army making a little more (but worked out the same due to state tax that I wasn't paying in FL). Just throwing that out there.

We could, but that doesn't include not buying the equipment we need. Doing with less means stop buying 69 plasma TVs every ######ing year for every squadron. Stop changing every uniform on a 2 yr basis. Stop buying the scheduler 4 GHz computers with 4 22" LCD monitors so he can use...excel (I mean seriously, WTFO). My wife has a GS job...sounds like the civilian side blows as much money on random shit as the AF does. I'm not kidding when I say I bet we could save BILLIONS by just not buying stupid shit. Oh wait, you say that's common sense...never mind, that won't be happening.

You're not kidding.. My directorate ran out of money 1/2 into the fiscal year so we're running on empty till October, but man did we spend it on some silly things. I have 2 20" monitors that are nicer than my home monitor, all so I can have my outlook up on another screen without PowerPoint covering it. And somehow or another IBM got away with charging us $2,569 for a laptop that is marginally better than the Gateway my friend just bought for $500. They were talking about getting webcams so they can do their 1 on 1 teleconferencing with the people in Europe.. When asked how much they cost, someone was saying around $150 a piece...... I have a $50 web cam so my parents can see their granddaughter that has up to a nice 800x600 resolution on it..

[Guest tenguFlyer]

Is there any truth to the idea that companies know the government has lots of money, so they charge the military more for the same stuff?

I also had a similar idea once. Instead of giving GM 30 billion (or however much it was) in bailout money. Why didnt the government just by 2 million cars. Sure whats the govt gonna do with 2 million cars? But at least they got something for their investment. I'll be very surprised if GM is ever recapable of paying back Uncle Sam.

Edited June 12, 2009 by tenguFlyer

[nsplayr]

Is there any truth to the idea that companies know the government has lots of money, so they charge the military more for the same stuff?

Take a defense economics class, it's a lot more complicated than that. Those $500 toilet seats did not actually cost $500, but a contract for 10 of them cost $5000 so it appears that way when you apply a little statistical manipulation. You can make statistics say anything!

I also had a similar idea once. Instead of giving GM 30 billion (or however much it was) in bailout money. Why didnt the government just by 2 million cars. Sure whats the govt gonna do with 2 million cars? But at least they got something for their investment. I'll be very surprised if GM is ever recapable of paying back Uncle Sam.

You answered why the government didn't do this, wtf do you do with 2 million cars? And GM isn't failing just because they aren't selling enough cars; they're failing because their healthcare, retiree, and dealer costs are constantly going up to the point where their profit margin didn't have enough slack in it to weather a sharp downturn like the one we're in right now. If the economy hadn't sh*t the bed GM wouldn't be bankrupt but the would still be rotten on the inside so to speak but it would be out of the public eye.

[Guest Cap-10]

The reason those toilet seats cost $690 is becuase of the outrageous requirements set forth by the governement. In order to make sure that it work everywhere for everyone, they tell the potential suppliers that is has to support the lightest airmen at 106 lbs all the way to the largest contractor at 369lbs....oh yeah, it also has to work at 120+ degrees in the desert, and not crack when frozen when you use it in Thule Greenland, and 69 other rediculous data points. If the company wants to win the contract, then it has to be able to prove that it's product does indeed meet the criteria, and they sure as hell aren't going to eat all those testing costs, so it get's pushed to the governement, who pays $690 dollars for the seat, then raises our taxes, because they are monetary idiots!

Rinse and repeat with every single governement acquisition program...

Harumph!

Cap-10

[Guest boredwith9to5]

The reason those toilet seats cost $690 is becuase of the outrageous requirements set forth by the governement. In order to make sure that it work everywhere for everyone, they tell the potential suppliers that is has to support the lightest airmen at 106 lbs all the way to the largest contractor at 369lbs....oh yeah, it also has to work at 120+ degrees in the desert, and not crack when frozen when you use it in Thule Greenland, and 69 other rediculous data points. If the company wants to win the contract, then it has to be able to prove that it's product does indeed meet the criteria, and they sure as hell aren't going to eat all those testing costs, so it get's pushed to the governement, who pays $690 dollars for the seat, then raises our taxes, because they are monetary idiots!

Rinse and repeat with every single governement acquisition program...

Harumph!

Cap-10

Because having the enlisted soldiers, who they already pay, go to Home Depot and buy a few toilets and install them themselves would just make too much sense.

[Ill Destructor]

In classic economic theory, government spending should increase during a recession so as to keep money moving through the economy. However, that is typically predicated on government saving money during the good times. We haven't done well with the savings part and so we don't have the money to keep the economy afloat. As a nation we get excited over "balanced" budgets when this really should be the baseline. The governments' habits of spending more than their budgets is completely unsustainable, but is perpetuated by the voting public which, by and large, is composed of financial simpletons. So in short, good luck saving this sinking ship.

[Guest AirForceZip]

Ill Destructor, way to rock the Ron Paul vote. I wrote him in lol.